5 ms·

Drug Submarine Seized In Ecuador Is Huge Leap For Smugglers

46 points by dwynings 16y ago

dublinclontarf 16y ago
I did a little digging around a little more than a year ago when I had read about the narcotics submersibles. With this step up to full submarines I'm thinking that the people using these can now have them built in almost any location next to the sea around the world. Somalia would seem to be a good place to build, no government to sieze them.
- demallien 16y ago
  Well, yes and no - you need a decent chink of infrastructure to build a submarine - you know, not having your engineering staff murdered, important supplies stolen, that sort of thing. It's hard to supply the sort of protection needed to guarantees these basic conditions when you're a long way from your support base. Of course, if a Somali warlord wanted to get in on the submarine-building business, he'd probably be able to make a decent amount of money. But I bet you could get the same service from a shady shipyard in Shanghai or somewhere similar for a lower price...
  - BerislavLopac 16y ago
    "a shady shipyard in Shanghai" Thank you for giving me the title of my next novel. ;)
  - JoeAltmaier 16y ago
    Why not just buy one? They have the money.
- avar 16y ago
  What I find odd is that they're hiding their construction efforts at all. Why not start a company and build them out in the open? It's not like it's illegal to construct submarines.
  - jws 16y ago
    It is illegal under US law to use unregistered vessels to evade detection anywhere in the open ocean.[1] I'm pretty sure the US government would extend "conspiring" to include your smuggling yacht company's owner and employees. [1] http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-3598 http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-3598
    - avar 16y ago
      In the U.S. yes, but this is in Ecuador. Such a company would operate wholly outside the U.S., and only sell the submarines in kit form, ready for assembly. Here's the full text of the law b.t.w.: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-110publ407/html/PLAW-110publ407.htm http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-110publ407/html/PLAW-110pu...
      - jws 16y ago
        As soon as a sub comes into international waters the law applies. I see no reason why the interpretation of "conspiring" would be hindered by kit-form subs or sovereignty of the manufacturing location. If there was a thriving market for cargo submarines for non-covert haulage, maybe. I suppose if the shipyard owners don't do too many subs, don't travel internationally, and the country doesn't extradite to the United States, then the shipyard owner would be relatively secure. You'd have to make a fair number or be otherwise interesting for a forcible extraction.
        GFischer 16y ago
        Erm... an US law applies in international waters? It's not like Ecuador will go to war with the US if the US decides to arbitrarily enforce their rules on the open waters, but Venezuela might... (I'd try Venezuela if I were a drug smuggler) Edit: the US law intends to apply to vessels "without nationality", but I'm pretty sure the crew has a nationality which might want to object. Most other nations would at least release a statement against such practices by the US (I know mine would, heck I'd draft it myself)
demallien 16y ago
That's the problem with wars - they lead to arms races.... The sooner western governments start looking into the development of safer recreational drugs (ie no worse than alcohol, and preferably with low dependence), the sooner we can get rid of drug lords, drug wars, and all the killing and suffering that goes with it. Stupid stupid stupid....
- anonman1 16y ago
  "O brave new world that has such people in it. Let's start at once."
- shin_lao 16y ago
  The problem is that you don't want more recreational drugs in your country. Alcohol is already a problem, so is tobacco, do we really want to add more? It's naive to believe that legalizing drugs will damage drug lords. They will continue to sell different kind of drugs, because whatever you legalize, there's going to be a market for different kind of substances; and they will simply flood the market with cheaper, not health-approved, substances. An example of it is illegal cigarettes smuggling caused by the rise of cigarettes prices. There is an example of a country devastated by "soft" drugs, it's Djibouti (http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Djibouti http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Djibouti) with Khat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khat http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khat). You really don't want your whole workforce getting just enough to buy Khat and spend the day stoned or do you? No silver bullet.
  - stretchwithme 16y ago
    Why would the entire workplace suddenly decide to start using drugs? Its not like employers can't detect stoned employees.
    - shin_lao 16y ago
      You don't do it at work, you do it after. Your life purpose becomes "being able to pay for enough Khat". The story there is that the man that managed Djibouti's port forbid the usage of Khat for his workers and couldn't walk around without his body guards.
tomjen3 16y ago
I wonder how much they would pay for some of the old Soviet diesel subs - they are properly to expensive to scuttle after one trip, but they can properly carry a lot more than these homemade ones, and they would be better at evading radar too.
- protomyth 16y ago
  Yeah, but the US Navy might be inclined to deal a tad bit differently with a bunch of russian subs approaching the US shore.
profitoftruth85 16y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cocaine_Cowboys http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cocaine_Cowboys is a good documentary on the drug trade that has an interesting portion on the use of submersibles in the drug trade. That documentary came out in 2006 and it showed how drug runners had already evolved past these vessels by using containers shaped like driftwood logs and attaching them by long ropes to fishing vessels. The driftwood containers had gps trackers on them so when the coastguard came close they would sink them with the rope attached and another ship would pick them up later. I think its available on thepiratebay.
- stcredzero 16y ago
  You don't even need GPS trackers on the containers. Just note the GPS location at the time you cut the rope. Have a transponder aboard that listens for a specific signal before it starts transmitting. Such devices would be cheap to make and might be harder to detect than GPS devices which broadcast location signals.
stcredzero 16y ago
Prediction: market forces will collide. As electric cars become more widespread, and lithium-ion batteries get cheaper, we'll get to the point when it will be profitable to run such subs entirely on batteries. Such subs wouldn't be disposable, but they could be exceedingly hard to detect.
avar 16y ago
Both this submarine and the semi-submersibles they had earlier have crews. It'd be very interesting if they can develop something completely autonomous. E.g. a 10 meter tube that navigates by GPS, occasionally surfaces to get its bearings, and has enough diesel for a ~5000km ocean voyage. You could program that to zig-zag across the ocean and land on a beach somewhere, where you could extract the cargo, refuel it, and send it back.
- stcredzero 16y ago
  There have been oceangoing robots designed to move with very little power by exploiting buoyancy and gliding on dive planes. Swarms of such small drones could be exceedingly hard to detect and could be made cheaply in large numbers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underwater_glider http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underwater_glider The practical range of these things is literally ocean-spanning. Program these on roundabout courses and land them in random places on the coast. They would be very hard to track.

46 points by dwynings 16y ago

I did a little digging around a little more than a year ago when I had read about the narcotics submersibles. With this step up to full submarines I'm thinking that the people using these can now have them built in almost any location next to the sea around the world. Somalia would seem to be a good place to build, no government to sieze them.

demallien 16y ago
Well, yes and no - you need a decent chink of infrastructure to build a submarine - you know, not having your engineering staff murdered, important supplies stolen, that sort of thing. It's hard to supply the sort of protection needed to guarantees these basic conditions when you're a long way from your support base. Of course, if a Somali warlord wanted to get in on the submarine-building business, he'd probably be able to make a decent amount of money. But I bet you could get the same service from a shady shipyard in Shanghai or somewhere similar for a lower price...
- BerislavLopac 16y ago
  "a shady shipyard in Shanghai" Thank you for giving me the title of my next novel. ;)
- JoeAltmaier 16y ago
  Why not just buy one? They have the money.
avar 16y ago
What I find odd is that they're hiding their construction efforts at all. Why not start a company and build them out in the open? It's not like it's illegal to construct submarines.
- jws 16y ago
  It is illegal under US law to use unregistered vessels to evade detection anywhere in the open ocean.[1] I'm pretty sure the US government would extend "conspiring" to include your smuggling yacht company's owner and employees. [1] http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-3598 http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-3598
  - avar 16y ago
    In the U.S. yes, but this is in Ecuador. Such a company would operate wholly outside the U.S., and only sell the submarines in kit form, ready for assembly. Here's the full text of the law b.t.w.: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-110publ407/html/PLAW-110publ407.htm http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-110publ407/html/PLAW-110pu...
    - jws 16y ago
      As soon as a sub comes into international waters the law applies. I see no reason why the interpretation of "conspiring" would be hindered by kit-form subs or sovereignty of the manufacturing location. If there was a thriving market for cargo submarines for non-covert haulage, maybe. I suppose if the shipyard owners don't do too many subs, don't travel internationally, and the country doesn't extradite to the United States, then the shipyard owner would be relatively secure. You'd have to make a fair number or be otherwise interesting for a forcible extraction.
      - GFischer 16y ago
        Erm... an US law applies in international waters? It's not like Ecuador will go to war with the US if the US decides to arbitrarily enforce their rules on the open waters, but Venezuela might... (I'd try Venezuela if I were a drug smuggler) Edit: the US law intends to apply to vessels "without nationality", but I'm pretty sure the crew has a nationality which might want to object. Most other nations would at least release a statement against such practices by the US (I know mine would, heck I'd draft it myself)

demallien 16y ago

That's the problem with wars - they lead to arms races.... The sooner western governments start looking into the development of safer recreational drugs (ie no worse than alcohol, and preferably with low dependence), the sooner we can get rid of drug lords, drug wars, and all the killing and suffering that goes with it. Stupid stupid stupid....

anonman1 16y ago
"O brave new world that has such people in it. Let's start at once."
shin_lao 16y ago
The problem is that you don't want more recreational drugs in your country. Alcohol is already a problem, so is tobacco, do we really want to add more? It's naive to believe that legalizing drugs will damage drug lords. They will continue to sell different kind of drugs, because whatever you legalize, there's going to be a market for different kind of substances; and they will simply flood the market with cheaper, not health-approved, substances. An example of it is illegal cigarettes smuggling caused by the rise of cigarettes prices. There is an example of a country devastated by "soft" drugs, it's Djibouti (http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Djibouti http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Djibouti) with Khat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khat http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khat). You really don't want your whole workforce getting just enough to buy Khat and spend the day stoned or do you? No silver bullet.
- stretchwithme 16y ago
  Why would the entire workplace suddenly decide to start using drugs? Its not like employers can't detect stoned employees.
  - shin_lao 16y ago
    You don't do it at work, you do it after. Your life purpose becomes "being able to pay for enough Khat". The story there is that the man that managed Djibouti's port forbid the usage of Khat for his workers and couldn't walk around without his body guards.

tomjen3 16y ago

I wonder how much they would pay for some of the old Soviet diesel subs - they are properly to expensive to scuttle after one trip, but they can properly carry a lot more than these homemade ones, and they would be better at evading radar too.

protomyth 16y ago
Yeah, but the US Navy might be inclined to deal a tad bit differently with a bunch of russian subs approaching the US shore.

profitoftruth85 16y ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cocaine_Cowboys http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cocaine_Cowboys is a good documentary on the drug trade that has an interesting portion on the use of submersibles in the drug trade. That documentary came out in 2006 and it showed how drug runners had already evolved past these vessels by using containers shaped like driftwood logs and attaching them by long ropes to fishing vessels. The driftwood containers had gps trackers on them so when the coastguard came close they would sink them with the rope attached and another ship would pick them up later. I think its available on thepiratebay.

stcredzero 16y ago
You don't even need GPS trackers on the containers. Just note the GPS location at the time you cut the rope. Have a transponder aboard that listens for a specific signal before it starts transmitting. Such devices would be cheap to make and might be harder to detect than GPS devices which broadcast location signals.

stcredzero 16y ago

Prediction: market forces will collide. As electric cars become more widespread, and lithium-ion batteries get cheaper, we'll get to the point when it will be profitable to run such subs entirely on batteries. Such subs wouldn't be disposable, but they could be exceedingly hard to detect.

avar 16y ago

Both this submarine and the semi-submersibles they had earlier have crews. It'd be very interesting if they can develop something completely autonomous. E.g. a 10 meter tube that navigates by GPS, occasionally surfaces to get its bearings, and has enough diesel for a ~5000km ocean voyage. You could program that to zig-zag across the ocean and land on a beach somewhere, where you could extract the cargo, refuel it, and send it back.

stcredzero 16y ago
There have been oceangoing robots designed to move with very little power by exploiting buoyancy and gliding on dive planes. Swarms of such small drones could be exceedingly hard to detect and could be made cheaply in large numbers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underwater_glider http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underwater_glider The practical range of these things is literally ocean-spanning. Program these on roundabout courses and land them in random places on the coast. They would be very hard to track.